Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force/Archive 2

Lists
I'm looking at List of ships of the Japanese Navy. And at a total of five sub-lists, most in Category:Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy. There is a lot of duplication between them (e.g. some ships appear in 4 lists!) - would it be better to organise these by having a set of distinct sub-lists and transcluding those onto the main list page? The Land (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Help
Can someone with more free time than me check out this talk page and see about adressing the descrepancy there? I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ship infobox template profusion?
FYI: While doing a bit of stub sorting naval-stubs to mil-ship-stubs, I came across another ship infobox template this one for Polish ships: Infobox_Polish Navy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Military history/Infobox conversion. ;-) Kirill 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Down the throat

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian Navy
The following text is on the Indian Navy
 * India has a maritime history dating back to 5,000 years. The Sanskrit word "Nou" meant a boat and "Navgatih" meant Navigation. Navigation as a science originated on the river Sindhu (Indus).Interesting facts about India

I removed the second sentence as being unsourced, not realizing the ref was for that too, with a request for reliable sources. I was reverted by user:Chanakyathegreat with the edit summary ''No one can deny it. Since this is not a language issue, I will make necessary changes.'' This editor is generally quite knowledgable, so I am surprised at his support of a government page which amounts to unsourced propoganda as a reliable source. I've seen much better US or UK government pages removed as "non-neutral", and this one certianly isn't that. The firt item states: India never invaded any country in her last 100000 years of history. This is very dubious, as recorded human history only goes back about 10,000 years, and definitely brings into question the accuracy of other points on the site page.

I have no desire to get into a fight with someone over his nation's beliefs regarding history and myth. Like arguing over religion, it will accomplish nothing. My desire here is to follow Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources. Items on the linguistic origin of words should use reliable linguistic sources - I'm certain many exist that can back up the assertions here. That is my only goal here. - BillCJ (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The second sentence is true, excluding some minor points about transliteration; it can be sourced to any Sanskrit dictionary, and is not worth edit warring over. The third is weasel-wording, and extremely dubious; a "science of navigation" certainly arose in the Mediterranean, and probably elsewhere, independent of India, and claiming even that the Indian discovery was first requires a handtailored definition of "science", and probably some dubious assertions about chronology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill, GOI is not a propoganda government. They are not spreading communist ideology or religious ideology or any other ideology of a leader. The ASI is responsible for the study of history and historical sites in India. Most of the knowledge about historical facts are obtained from the Sanskrit and Buddhist texts available with the ASI. Navagatih and Nou are the words used in sanskrit for Navigation and Boat. Hindi which is derived from Sanskrit uses Navik (Sailor) and Nouka (Boat). I am not an expert in languages, so if necessary lets invite a Sanskirt scholar to discuss this issues.

Septentrionalis, you did not provide any specific reason for your arguments.

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Chanakya, I'm using "propoganda" in the same sense that any government site is going to be pro-government, and biased towards the good aspects of its own nation's history. Also, if the Sanskrit scholar will quote from reliable published sources, fine; otherwise, don't bother. We can't accecpt the scholar's own word, as that is Original Research. A government website with obvious errors is not a Reliable Source. - BillCJ (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that Navagatih is Sanskrit, but it is not the origin of the English word to navigate. That has Greek roots(older than the English presence in India) and Greek and Sanskrit have a common root or was it Greek influence on Sanskrit(you didn't check that, did you?)? So I strongly suggest that you mention that English has Greek roots, but that Sanskrit is quite similar, possibly because of a common root predating the language seperation or both are under Greek influence. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, that argument will have disastrous consequences for Wiki. We all quote from many articles and websites which includes Government websites of nations like U.S, U.K etc and also agencies like the World bank, IMF and even spy agencies like CIA. Since Wiki is not a research website and we cannot do research on such subjects, it is better to provide source and leave it as it is. If anyone has objections, then they must quote the source questioning it, then the removal can be done or the alternative argument can be added.

Wandalstouring, Wiki says ''Its position in the cultures of South and Southeast Asia is akin to that of Latin and Greek in Europe and it has evolved into as well as influenced many modern-day languages of the world. It appears in pre-Classical form as Vedic Sanskrit, with the language of the Rigveda being the oldest and most archaic stage preserved. Dating back to as early as 1500 BCE, Vedic Sanskrit is the earliest attested Indo-Aryan language''. Check Indo-European languages for more information.

The Indian Navy website on history contains this information The Roman writer Pliny speaks of Indian traders carrying away large quantities of gold from Rome, in payment for much-sought exports such as precious stones, skins, clothes, spices, sandalwood, perfumes, herbs and indigo.

Now When is Navigation said to have originated. Any Idea. Provide details. During the time of Aryabhatta it was in use. So if someone was using it earlier we can search for other Indians using Navigational tools or methods even before that. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't know when navigation originated, you can't write that it originated in a particular place. By all means mention any specific instances of maritime activity in ancient India, but don't assert a fact based on the absence of evidence. Regarding Pliny - did the Indian traders come in ships, if so whose? The main trade routes between India and Europe went through Persia and then to the Mediterranean; given the lack of a canal at Suez I surmise they would be Mediterranean ships with Mediterranean navigators.... The Land (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not in Indian Ships. Why should and how can the Indians travel in Mediterranean ships. And what were the Mediterranean people doing if they had the ships. I will say that Indian traders came in ships built in India with Indian Navigators. Still I don't know from where did the origination of Navigation in Mediterranean started. If India can have trade with Rome, Indians must have had trade with the people in the Mediterranean as well. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pliny refers to the trade direct across the Indian Ocean, in the last centuries BC; it may in fact have been discovered by a Greek (Eudoxus of Cyzicus); but it has nothing to do with the Indus, which had been navigated long before (I do not claim Scylax of Caryanda was the first), or with the discovery of the "science of navigation", whatever that means. The Egyptians and Phoenicians were demonstrably navigating centuries before; the South Indians may have been, but less documentation has survived, because of the climate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Egyptians and Phoenicians were demonstrably navigating centuries before Can you provide the time. When and to which places. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the Egyptians, see Land of Punt, about 2500 BC (presumably the Mediterranean was even earlier, but the documentation is less clear); for the Phoenicians, Tarshish. Pliny was writing of his own time, the first century AD. This will require additional editors; Chanakyathegreat insists on adding his ill-sourced addenda to thia article, where they violate WP:TOPIC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move: Gneisenau class battlecruiser to Scharnhorst class battleship
Please discuss at Talk:Gneisenau_class_battlecruiser. The Land (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Article patrol
I could use some help keeping an eye on King Sejong the Great class destroyer. It's had a lot of IP traffic of late, many adding what appears to be POV commentary, with no sources - of course. I don't know enough about destroyers in general or this class in particular to recognize outright errors. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Would some one take this one for me please?
-- I'd handle it myself, but I am an involved party and do not wish to borrow trouble unnecessarily. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For all those who have not commented yet, discussion has moved to WT:MILHIST Woody (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed
I've reverted additions to Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier which removed USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). I've requested that the editor stop and discuss before making unilateral changes of this nature. I think a discussion is now required, as to if the ship should be considered a member of the class or not. -MBK004 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Scharnhorst - Battlecruiser or Battleship?
Because this thorny issue still hasn't reached consensus, an RfC is now open at: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser. Regards, The Land (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland FA Status
I've gone through the existing article multiple times lately, and I am convinced that in light of its accuracy and organisation it's nowhere near "FA" Status. While a lot of work has gone to it, the only decent attributes it has are the maps, some of the narrative and the list of hits. It seems everyone has added their own little sub-section at some time or another, and the lack of in-line citations and the absence of some truly standard works (the British Official Despatches, Jellicoe and Scheer's memoirs) is damning. I couldn't quite get my head around the process of re-assessing the article, so if others are in agreement perhaps someone could open an assessment page? The article hasn't been reviewed in 3 years now. It's time for a shake-up. --Harlsbottom (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that an FAR would be helpful. Do you want me to open it? I think the problems are beyond little fixes that can be dealt with on the talk page. Woody (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you would open an FAR, that would be great. User:Tirronan has raised many points and I've raised a couple lately, but as you say, it's "beyond little fixes".  --Harlsbottom (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland FAR
Battle of Jutland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Woody (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

HMS Blanche
Has anyone got a copy of Colledge to hand? If so, could they look over HMS Blanche please. Thanks. Woody (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been done now. Woody (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Need help...
I'm dangling dangerously close to 3RR on USS Forrestal (CV-59). An IP is removing mention of an operation with a corresponding article, claiming that they were onboard at the time and the event did not happen. I've asked them to provide a proper citation to prove their assertions, but I don't want to revert again. Can someone help? -MBK004 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Statement in question now cited, but keep an eye on the article. -MBK004 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Marine (military)
Marine (military) was moved via cut-and-paste to Marines. I have undone the move, and warned the user who did it. This editor has several informal cut/paste warning, but this is his first formal one. He seems to be a knowledgeable editor, but for some reason fails to grasp that prohibitions against such moves aren't just the typicla Wiki policy, but that keeping article history togetehr is important. If someone wants to follow up on talking to him, fine, as I'm not going to challenge him directly on this.

This does bring up the question of what to name this article. It had previously been at Marine corps but was moved by a user who believed that only the USMC used the title "Marine Corp". A quick run through the list of marine/naval infantry arms quickly shows that this is incorrect.

At this point, the article is a short summary on what a marine (the person/naval infantryman) is, while the rest of the article is a lengthy list of the marine/naval infantry arms of various nations in the world. I don't think the current title is right for an article listing the marine organizations. Perhaps the best move would be to split off that section, and place it back at Marine corps (or Marine Corps). Then the article could be expanded with more of the history of the force. The Marine (military) page can then be expanded more along the lines of articles such as Sailor and Soldier, focusing on duties, training, and so on, and perhaps moved to a more appropriate name. - BillCJ (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that Marine corps should be avoided. It is by no means universal, many of the units listed are well below corps strength, and it has far too many resonances with the USMC. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can quite happily use 'corps' in the sense of a military unit/regiment, so I believe your second argument is invalid. Haven't thought through the other ones though. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly my mind goes to USMC when I hear 'Marine corps'. The Royal Marines are a corps but the term isn't part of its name I don't think....probably due to the confusion having Royal Marine Corps and Royal Marine Commandos would cause. I think Marine (military) is the best option still. The other option would be 'Naval Infantry' but then we are in breach of UCN. Narson (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Roger and Narson; "Marine corps" should be avoided because of the connection to the USMC specifically. It would only add to confusion; "Marine (military)" is still probably the best option. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Roger, Narson, and Parsecboy. "Marine corps" is going to invoke USMC in a reader's mind, and that's not the topic. Marine (military) is probably best, maybe Marine (navy) (but it would never stay that way); Marines (military) is back to the USMC in the reader's mind. Well, in my jarhead mind, anyway. htom (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

803 Naval Air Squadron
Could I have a bit of a hand with this squadron's pre- and post- World War Two history? Thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Question re categories for US naval air stations
I'm working on cleaning up the categories pertaining to US naval air stations, so I left a couple of questions at Talk:Naval Air Station. But after a week I haven't had a reply, so I thought I'd try here.

Here are short versions of my questions:


 * Is it technically correct to consider a naval air station to be a particular type of "navy base"?


 * Is it really appropriate to consider an installation to be a type of unit on a par with a brigade or an air wing?

There's more detail on both questions on the NAS talk page.

Any help would be appreciated. Cgingold (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Carrier (documentary)
New documentary series on PBS called, Carrier. Although I added WPMILHIST to the talk page, I'm not quite sure if it falls under this project's scope or not. Obviously, feel free to delete it if it doesn't. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Fleet Question, 1910
I'm finishing up Rear Admiral Uriel Sebree's article, but I'm a bit confused with some of my sources. He is variously described late in his life as having led the "Second Division", the "Pacific Fleet", and the "Second Division, Pacific Fleet" -- a squadron of eight newly built cruisers led by the USS Tennessee. What I can't tell from my sources is whether he initially commanded only the "second division" of the Pacific Fleet, then commanded all of it? Whether he is referred to as having commanded the Pacific Fleet only as shorthand for his commanding the Second Division? Or whether the "second division" is itself a name for the Pacific Fleet of this period. I simply don't have enough background into the Naval structure of that era to know how it was organized. (And, according to United States Pacific Fleet, the US only had a "Pacific Fleet" prior to WWII between 1907 and 1910, which is fine because that matches the years that he commanded it and some newspaper sources I found discuss that the structure would change when he stepped down.) Help? JRP (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He apparently commanded the 2nd Division, 1st Squadron as a Rear Admiral (Lower Half) from 1908, then was promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet. At the time the Pacific Fleet consisted of the First Squadron with the 1st and 2nd Divisions of armored cruisers, and the Second Squadron in reserve which consted of a 3rd Division.  The Third Squadron covered East Asia, and there was a Torpedo Flotilla as well.


 * P.S. FYI Sebree became a Rear Admiral on 8 July 1907. --Harlsbottom (talk | library)

Historic US Navy rank - "master"
Looking at Benjamin Franklin Tilley, he was promoted from ensign to master (in 1870) to lieutenant. Is "master" an archaic term for Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Should I link that title to the LJG article or is there an article on historic US ranks that is the better place to link it? This came up in the FAC process for this article and I want to make sure I get the answer correct. As "master" is a common term, I haven't been able to find in a web search any note which says that they decided to change the name in any given year. Can anyone shed some light on this? JRP (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered my own question and made a stub out of it: master (naval). JRP (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Wisconsin (BB-64) now open
The peer review for USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

USS Curlew
I came across the following articles as part of the Tag Assessment drive:


 * USS Curlew (AMS-8)
 * USS Curlew (AM-69)

Both articles state that the ships were minesweepers during WWII. I find it hard to believe that the US Navy had two ships with the same names, roles and war. Can someone more familiar with the topic please take a look? Thanks. --dashiellx (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * DANFS says it's so, so it must be so. One was built as a minesweeper and the other was taken up from civilian service as one.  As to two ships, same role, one war - USS Hornet?  --Harlsbottom (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The text apparently comes from DANFS. The commission/decommission dates are different for both ships, and were operating in separate theaters (AMS-8 in the Pacific, and AM-69 on the US eastern coast). They do appear to be different ships. It is odd that they have the same name during the same general time. However, the Hornets Harlsbottom pointed out didn't have overlapping dates of existence; the 2nd was named after the first, which is a different scenario than this case. Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was merely responding directly to the comment "I find it hard to believe that the US Navy had two ships with the same names, roles and war." Of course it is rather unusual for two ships in the same navy at the same time to have the same name.  Anything is possible in wartime I guess - my Warships of the World-Victory Edition from just after the war mentions both. --Harlsbottom (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking into this. I guess my saying "two ships with the same names, roles and war" was a little misleading, I meant at the same time as it just seemed odd to me.  I appreciate you taking the time to check this out.  --dashiellx (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a side-note, when a U.S.N. warship is mentioned officially isn't the name and the classification number always read out together, i.e. U.S.S. Curlew A M Six Nine? So it wouldn't really matter how many ships you had with the same name so long as the classification was different. --Harlsbottom (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Haze gray and underway
I just located this article and tagged it for WPMILHIST and Maritime task force, as a Stub class article. Sv1xv (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of standardization in ship article names
I can't help but notice the obvious lack of standardization here. There seem to be some pretty cryptic and bizarre methods being used.

For example, for ships named HMS Royal Oak, the pages dealing with the individual ships are numbered, so that, for example, the eighth such ship to be so named is called HMS Royal Oak (08).

On the other hand, you have the WWII HMS Hood, whose page title is HMS Hood (51), the 51 denoting the ship's pennant number.

Other ship articles though, denote different ships of the same name by their date of launch, which I submit is the obvious method by which they should be listed. Gatoclass 17:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Royal Oak is disambiguated by pennant number; the fact that this happens to be the same as the sequence of the ship name is merely a coincidence.
 * As far as I understand it, the general rule is to use the pennant number where one is available, and the date of launch otherwise. Kirill 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, as per Naming conventions (ships), pennant numbers should be used first, the years of launch if none is available. Similarly, hull number takes precedence in naming US ships. As Kirill rightly points out, that Royal Oak has pennant 08 is pure co-incidence to her being the 8th Royal Oak. Capital ships did not carry flag superiors, hence the "naked" pennant number. Pennant number is a unique and official number for each ship, therefore is the ideal solution (with a few exceptions, such as HMS Endurance, where the 2 most recent ships were A171, or RFA Sir Galahad, where the replacement for the original took the same pennant. Here, date serves a useful purpose.
 * For me, launch date as the first choice is far from an ideal solution. For a start, why launch date? The ship isnt HMS so-and-so until it is commissioned, surely it would really make more sense to go with that? Secondly, ships aren't always launched into the navy that they serve; they may be bought, borrowed, captured and sold. There is a convention out there and it works. I see no need to tinker with it. Emoscopes Talk 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a convention out there and it works


 * I disagree, I don't think it does work. I'm pretty interested in military history myself, and I was utterly confounded by the naming convention until you just explained it to me. What chance will the average reader have of ascertaining this convention?


 * Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a handbook for grognards, pennant number is a characteristic that very few lay people are likely to be familiar with, and the fact that it was only adopted from WWI means that you end up with one convention for all ships before that era and another for ships after. People are naturally going to assume they are looking at dates because of all the other ships disambiguated by date, as I did. Furthermore, using pennant numbers means that every article using the convention will have to have in its opening paragraph a reference to the pennant number for clarification, which is redundant.


 * Also I don't find your arguments against using dates to be very persuasive. Launch date is a unique characteristic of ships that is both obvious and informative, and also consistent with other entries before WWI. The fact that a ship isn't "HMS so-and-so" until it is commissioned is neither here nor there, nor the fact that it may be sold to another navy, because according to the more general naming convention, articles get the most commonly used name for a thing. In any case, use of pennant numbers would not resolve those issues either.


 * And as you yourself admit, pennant numbers themselves change from time to time or are given to other ships, meaning they are not necessarily unique identfiers at all. But launch date is always a unique identifier, because the likelihood of two ships with the same name being launched in the same year must be remote to nonexistent. Gatoclass 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll just weigh in with my two cents: While Emoscopes raises a good question with ''why launch date? The ship isnt HMS so-and-so until it is commissioned''. Commissioning date would be ideal, as like the launch date itself it is a constant but reflects more the actual service life of the ship involved. The problem with Pennant Numbers - especially with Royal Navy big-gun ships is that they were only permamently assigned at the end of very long careers in the majority of cases. HMS Royal Oak for example had 3 I think before being assigned 08. --Harlsbottom 10:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles are totally chaotic anyhow. Take a look at the ships in Category:World War II battleships of the United Kingdom for example. Half of them are listed by launch date, half are listed by pennant number, and of those that are listed by pennant number, very few of them refer to the pennant number in the text, leaving the reader totally in the dark as to what the number represents.


 * I don't really care what system is adopted, but it needs to be a consistent one, we can't have ship articles listed inconsistently like this. Gatoclass 11:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm adding wikilinks to pennant numbers in the intro of the articles, so that people aren't left utterly confused as to their meaning. I've done it for all the British WWII battleships, but I can see this is going to be a big job because almost none of the ship articles have an explanatory link. Gatoclass 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've recently asked for opinions on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), and, getting no opposition (or other comments, to be fair), modified Naming conventions (ships) to relax the pennant number requirement for older ships. I think this policy has failed, and failed for a good reason. Only a few pre-WW2 ships have been renamed (just two of the QE's, for example), and even for those, most of the links still go to the old article names. I think the idea might have been consistency with the US Hull numbering. But pennant numbers are a lot less informative, and a lot less known. As far as I'm concerned HMS Queen Elizabeth (00) violates WP:COMMONNAME. When I fist saw it, I was very confused (and I am rather interested in military and maritime history). Even if I know what it is, I still can gain little information about the ship unless have a mental map from pennant numbers to years. I know the QEs were prominent in WW1, so HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913) gives me a good hint that this is the ship I'm interested in. Since I found no opposition on either the naming conventions page or on the QE talk page, I have already moved it back to the launch date scheme.  I would suggest to do this for other pre-WW2 British ships as well, but was pointed to this discussion when I suggested this at Talk:HMS Warspite (03) --Stephan Schulz 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While I like the current use of pennant numbers, it probably stems from my knowledge of the subject in that they seem obvious to me. I appreciate they probably seem rather random for those without my unhealthy obsession. However, I stick by what I said earlier. I don't think launch date is particularly useful - it doesn't tell us much, it can be many years after launch before a ship enters service. Also, depending on the construction methods, launch date can be relatively soon after laying down, or a relatively long time. Then there are ships that aren't launched; those built in dry docks are floated out - a minor nitpick I know, but if we are going to do this I'd rather it was done right.
 * Personally, therefore, I think laying down date or commissioning date are preferential. My preference is for the latter, as that is when the ship really became "HMS" whatever, and there are many ships that were transferred from other services etc. Emoscopes Talk 23:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Commissioning date is problematic, as the same ship may be commisioned more than once. Launch date (even ships built in a dry dock have a launch date, AFAIK, even if they are not strictly "launched") and laying down date both seem reasonable to me. I would prefer launch date for three reasons. The practical one is that this convention seems to be the one that has been used most so far. The second one is that that is usually when ships receive their names in the formal christening. The final reason is that many ships are not completed as laid down (see e.g. HMS Furious (1916)). BTW, I went over to de:, and they are not consistent either - it's HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913), but HMS Warspite (1915).--Stephan Schulz 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, if there's to be a change, I would definitely support launch date, since that is a common convention both on Wiki and in other contexts, and also for the reasons outlined by Steven above. For example, what would you do for all the US ships sold to the UK under lend-lease? They have two commission dates, one for the US Navy and another for the Royal Navy. IMO it has to be launch date because it is both ubiquitous and unambiguous. Gatoclass 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are seeds for a different confusion with Gato's proposal. Lend-lease ships were renamed - do we use the USN launch date or the RN commissioning date? Neither seems totally satisfactory. Some had long USN services, while others were transferred on launch or soon after commissioning into the USN. All the above refers to "pennant numbers", which I take to mean the RN ones - is there to be a change to the inclusion of USN hull numbers? Personally, I'm contaent with the current convention. Before any change, I think there needs to be a wide consensus - there's a hell of a lot of work for someone (not me!). Folks at 137 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No confusion there at all! I said I think launch date should be used, not commissioning dates, because there is only one launch date for a ship. On the other hand, there can be more than one commissioning date, which is why launch date offers an unambiguous identifier whereas commissioning dates do not. Furthermore as Steven has pointed out, launch date is already used for ships which don't have pennant numbers, so it's only conforming with current practice. Gatoclass 02:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think with the lend-lease example, the launch dates mean nothing to the reader interested in their Royal Navy service only. The ships such as the Town class destroyers were launched from 1918 through the early 20s. However they were not transferred until 1940, which in my opinion is ambiguous when one is looking for a World War II ship, but is given a list of dates that suggest a previous era. That, in my opinion, is the weakness of dates. While they do disambiguate, because they suggest a period in time, they do create ambiguity - I'm perhaps looking for a ship of World War II, but the dates suggest World War I (this will be the case for a lot of RN ships). It might look on the face of it a neater, more methodical solution than pennant numbers. However, is the purpose to disambiguate between 2 different ships, or to identify the ship as belong to an era? My problem with dates is that they have the latter side effect. Emoscopes Talk 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my most humble of opinions, it is the role of this disambiguation page to help the reader identify which ship they are looking for, not the role of the disambiguation parenthesis in the namespace. Otherwise we might as well have HMS Queen Elizabeth (World War I and II battleship). Emoscopes Talk 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, the overarching standard is WP:COMMONNAME. Disambiguation is only a small part of it. At least for me, HMS Queen Elizabeth (00)is very confusing. HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913) is very clear, and if I know Wikipedia conventions, I might even type that directly into the search box. --Stephan Schulz 02:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And will we have USS Arkansas (1911) and USS Arkansas (1978) or is this only for RN ships? Emoscopes has clarified my point with dates - if dates were a real 100% solution I would support the change, but I am unconvinced and believe that it's loads of work for limited benefit. I do understand that there is lack of knowledge over pennant/ hull numbers, but we do use redirects and disambig pages. Don't we? Folks at 137 06:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Folks at 137 raises a valid point: if we adopt a by lanch date rather hull number we will end up screwing over nearly every USN ship; all of which are currently ID as USS (name) (XX[X]-YY[Y]), where the X's and Y's are the ship hull clasification symbol and number respectively. Unless the new system is reserved strictly for RN ships and those ships that follow the RN example its going to create a butload of work by forcing mass redirections for USN articles by moving them from established pages to new pages. Just something to keep in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the other side of the debate, and the reason why I was having second thoughts about my initial proposal until Steven raised it again.


 * What I have said however is that if pennant numbers are to be used, they must be referred to in the intro because otherwise they are totally confusing. I already did that a couple of days ago for all the British battleships, but if pennant numbers are to remain the identifier it will need to be done for all the ships with an unqualified pennant number so that people aren't confused into thinking they are looking at a launch date. Gatoclass 09:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I tried to say above, I don't think that the US hull numbers and the RN pennant numbers are equivalent for this use. The US Hull numbers are used much more consistently, even in the popular press, and are much better known. And the US navy had a lot less history to mess things up (no offense intended to either side ;-). My dissatisfaction is only with the use of pennant numbers for the RN - I'm fine with the US hull numbers.  And indeed, the pennant numbers have been very slow to catch on. My impression is that much less than half the ships in question use them, and even for those that do, typically less than half the links point directly to the pennant number article name.  So I don't think there will be "loads of work", at least not compared to achieve consistency the other way round. --Stephan Schulz 13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From my overviewing of the articles it seems that most all 1930s RN ships onwards have article names that disambig by the Flag and Pennant number. That the number is not often used in the popular press is that the Pennant is not needed, but it is there painted on the side of the ships in question and if visible on a photo tells you whihc ship you are looking at. GraemeLeggett 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points: I'm unhappy with differing conventions for USN and RN ships - that is likely to confuse and suggests differing standards based on national perspective. I searched on HMS Kent and HMS Agamemnon, as an non-expert reader might do. Have a look - they both give enough detail to locate the appropriate article. Seems ok to me - launch date is a solution looking for a problem, IMO. An explanation of pennant number would be useful, however. BTW, pennant numbers are a NATO convention; the USN chooses not to adhere to it. Presumably other navies that use the NATO standard would also be subject to review and change for launch date, if accepted. Folks at 137 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not all searches go to disambig pages. Some go directly to a particular ship, like HMS Hood for example. Some disambig pages probably fail to mention pennant numbers too. For these reasons, the pennant numbers really need to be mentioned in the intro where they can't be missed, or it leaves users potentially in the dark as to what the number represents. Gatoclass 03:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The category of Royal Navy ship names has about a thousand entries (5 pages at 200 a time) and only two have titles of the form "xxxxx (disambiguation)"; Hood and Beagle. So that is a rare case. For what its worth, the Beagle one lists pennants for the two ships that had them. GraemeLeggett 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one with an uneasy feeling that we might get two naming conventions out of this? One for the RN (or maybe just pre-1930s RN), and a different convention for everyone else.  This seems to be contrary to the principle of least astonishment.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless we completely do away with Hull/pennant numbers (which would be very much work), there is no way around this inconsistency. Hull numbers are rather young. Ships have existed for a much longer time. The question is where we draw the line. The RN battleships stick out in particular, because their unadorned pennant numbers can be easily mistaked for dates. But even for less problematic cases, I think they are not as useful as (launch) dates. --Stephan Schulz 15:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, the less I like dates in ship titles (where pennant or hull numbers are available). It's no more helpful or consistent than pennant numbers, IMO, and deviates from standard naval usage (apart from the USN) in much of the 20th century (when navies were at their largest). I wouldn't expect non-experts to know pennants or hull numbers or launch dates (these details need only be used to distinguish articles), but disambigs and redirects can and should guide non-experts to where they want to be. Folks at 137 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, while I initially started this thread as a challenge to the current format, on reflection I think pennant numbers are probably the sensible option. The problem with Steven's suggestion is that it makes an arbitrary distinction between WWII and post-WWII ships. If we are going to use pennant numbers at all, might as well use them from their inception IMO. My only real concern now, as I've said before, is that the unqualified pennant numbers of capital ships get mentioned in the intro, because otherwise as Steven points out, they can easily be confused with dates. Gatoclass 08:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whichever route we choose, I think I shall try to make more disambigs more useful, with enough info to allow a casual reader to select correctly (even if it contravenes WP guidelines). There's also a point that, if a ship's name was used only once (eg, HMS Kelly), why bother with including pennant number (or date, etc) in the article title? We're only using this as a way of creating unique titles. Folks at 137 18:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to Naming conventions (ships), I think that the issue is to some extent one of interpretation. It surprises me that experienced editors, such as Kirill and Emoscopes, should be interpreting the convention to mean that "the general rule is to use the pennant number where one is available,", or  "pennant numbers should be used first, the year of launch if none is available". The following excerpts are verbatim (except for emphasis and an interpolation):
 * "Use ships' hull numbers (hull classification symbols) for the United States Navy. For the modern Royal Navy and many European and Commonwealth navies, use pennant numbers if available, sufficiently unique, and well known. (My emphasis);
 * "If no hull number is available (for a USN ship) or if it is not well-known, use the ship's year of launching if known — like human birthdays, every ship has one" (My emphasis. For an example, see USS Chesapeake (1799)).
 * The convention also acknowledges the primacy of Naming conventions, which requires that "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity".
 * Naming conventions (ships) is flawed in that it does not define modern (I would suggest ships which served after the formation of NATO in 1949), and gives no guidance for those non-US ships which are not covered by the first of the two guidelines quoted above (i.e. all "non-modern" ships and all modern ones outside of NATO and the Commonwealth). However, if launch year is appropriate in for USN ships with no hull humber, it is difficult to see why it is not appropriate for these cases as well.
 * To my mind, the clear inference is that pennant numbers (as opposed to USN hull numbers) should not be used to disambiguate historical (i.e. pre-NATO) warships unless the pennant numbers are "well-known" to the majority of English speaking users - which, for practical purposes, is almost equivalent to "never". In the absence of any guidance to the contrary, it seems eminently logical to use launch date for these ships instead.
 * It is clear that the editors who created article with names such as HMS Royal Oak (08) did so in the belief that they were observing convention. Unfortunately, they were actually following an interpretation which goes far beyond, and arguably conflicts with, what the convention actually says. This suggests to me that the convention needs clarifying; at the very least, the omissions cited above should be made good.


 * Regards to all, John Moore 309 21:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa - I was unaware of the convention quoted above (perhaps I don't qualify as "experienced"). My argument, which I repeat, is that neither pennant/ hull numbers nor launch date are likely to be known to casual readers (or even, accurately, to most informed ones). I couldn't say when HMS Campbelltown was launched nor HMS Fiji, certainly not to the correct year, any more than the pennant nos of these ships - so, for me, the real issue is how to get to the correct ship? I argue that, without the precise name, most go via redirects or disambigs. Conventions/ rules should be open to review and clarification, perhaps this is appropriate here. Folks at 137 06:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently I have been writing some naval history and in the process wanted to find particular ships. For identifying which one I want pennant number etc is not much help since I don't know what it is. On the other hand, a date tells me I am looking at a ship with the correct name at the correct period and is immediately usefull in finding the correct article. Sandpiper (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I further notice someeone quoted a rule on naming conventions  "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity", which I quote again. It seems to me self-evident that the majority of people would not recognise a pennant number at all, whereas they immediately recognise the date of launch and thus the general historical period for identification purposes. It seems self-evident that the date is always going to be a better general identifier. Do articles about sailors or people get disambiguated by their service or national insurance numbers? Sandpiper (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ship article titles
A proposal to alter Naming conventions (ships) to mandate titling all ship articles by year of launch rather than pennant number has been made. Interested parties are invited to comment here. This notice has been copied from the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments sought on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article
Several editors (including myself) are currently discussing whether Japan's new Hyūga class helicopter destroyers should be classified as aircraft carriers or not and whether the article's references are adequete. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have proposed a merge of USS Imperator (ID-4080) into SS Imperator. All interested editors are welcome to discuss the proposal here. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot archiving
Would anyone be upset if I got Mizabot to archive this page? I figure since its slower here we could allow a 30 - 60 day period before archiving. --Brad (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done:
 * 42 day period before archiving. (6 weeks)
 * Archive pages at 100k before being full.
 * No less than 3 topics on page at anytime.
 * Minimum number of topics to archive is 2.
 * --Brad (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Navy ships by place of construction
I have started a discussion regarding the necessity and naming style of a series of newly created categories of the form Category:United States Navy ships built in STATE for 26 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The discussion may be found here. All interested editors are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "United States Navy ships built in STATE" categories have been nominated for up-merging into the "Ships built in STATE" categories. All editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Category rename proposal: Boxer Rebellion American ships → Boxer Rebellion naval ships of the United States
Category:Boxer Rebellion American ships has been nominated for renaming to Category:Boxer Rebellion naval ships of the United States. All editors are invited to add comments at the category's entry. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD notification of Exploding warships
I've nominated the above article for deletion, as it's an unsalvageable trainwreck of OR and unsourced conjecture. Any and all interested editors are welcome to comment, the discussion can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review of Protection of Military Remains Act 1986
Peer Review of Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 opened at MilHist, please comment. Also please not my thanks to Benea, without whom there woud be a lot of red links in the list of designated ships! Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice

Italics for U-boat names
We've been having a discussion at WikiProject Ships in regard to the use of italics for U-boat names. All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion here — Bellhalla (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hellenic Navy: Fleet
In this article there is a current list of Hellenic Navy ships. Next to each ship there is a small flag icon of the country where the ship was constructed. I have not seen these flags icons in articles about other Navies, although I have seen it in articles about aircraft fleets. What is the WP policy on the subject? Sv1xv (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is Manual of Style (flags) and WP:MILMOS. We have to ask ourselves: "Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?" Woody (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already checked these guidelines but found no definitive answer there. I believe that in the context of the Hellenic Navy fleet list the flags do not convey important information, but others may not share this view. Unfortunately I'm afraid that if I remove them I might start a war with other editors. Sv1xv (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked over the article, and actually do think there's some useful information the flags convey in the ship list. It denotes the country of origin, and would be more bulky to type out instead. I think they're fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Makes sense to me to leave them, as they're conveying additional information without extra cluttering. Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluenorway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bluenorway#Vessel_Full_Form_Naming_Convention Bluenorway (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Maritime warfare
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Apprentice Boys
An article I would like to start has to do with the "Apprentice Boys" program the US Navy had from about 1880-1905. Trouble I'm having is figuring out a proper title for the article. Apprentice Boys (currently a redirect), Apprentice Boys (United States Navy), United States Navy Apprentice Boys program etc etc. Any thoughts? --Brad (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move
There is a proposal to move List of U-boats to List of German U-boats All interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed move
I've proposed that Fleet Acts be moved to Naval Laws. All interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

GAN of Alaska class battlecruiser
Hey guys: I just nominated Alaska class battlecruiser to be a good article. I'd appreciate a reviewer from here who has some (any) experience with maritime history-related articles to ensure that the technical aspects of the article are all there.....I'm not quite sure that I have included everything. I think I have, but you never know... Anyway, thanks for any help! Cheers, &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  01:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Copied from WT:MILHIST -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-flash gear
Anyone thought about starting this article? Replies on here plz ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A request
If it doesn't already exist, can somebody attempt a page on the 8" Mark 71 (as I saw it designated) "low-recoil" gun. As I understand it, it was under study in the '70s as a replacement or supplement for the 16" being phased out. Thanx. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone is considering starting this page, the DANFS article will likely be of some help. In addition to the text, there are PD USN images of the Hull with the 8" Mk 71 mounted. I may actually get to this myself, but am in the middle of writing a paper for school, and don't have much time at the moment. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Scratch that&mdash;8"/55 caliber Mark 71 gun already exists. However, if someone feels like uploading some of the DANFS images and adding them to the article, that would be great. Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes - ship articles
(cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships)

I've made a couple new WP:SHIPS project pages that should help us monitor ship articles for vandalism. Unfortunately it wasn't feasible to make a single page for all ship articles (there are just too many), but you can access recent changes on US and UK ships here:
 * Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles US
 * Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Articles UK

Since they use a special pages function, you can't add them to your watchlist, so you might want to bookmark them or save a link to them on your userpage. It would be great if everyone would get in the habit of checking the recent changes links in addition to their own watchlists, so we can cast a broader net for vandalism. If there is interest in lists for other subsets of ship articles, let me know. Maralia (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle Fleet
Is it just me or should this article be moved to United States Battle Fleet or United States Battle Force? The United States Navy can hardly be said to have had a monopoly on the title "Battle Fleet" (the largest part of the British Grand Fleet was called the Battle Fleet). Really a disambiguation page is needed I think. Any comments? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Constitution is now FA; and a request from User:TomStar81
I'm pleased to announce that USS Constitution was promoted to Featured status. Congratulations to Brad101 and everyone that pitched in to help with the article, and thank you to those who participated in the peer review, A-class review, and FAC.

TomStar81 and I have been in touch via email, and he pointed out that February 22 will be the 100th anniversary of the conclusion of the Great White Fleet's trip around the world. He had been planning to work on the article, with the goal of Today's featured article on the centennial. Are there a couple people out there willing to take this on, with my help? Maralia (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would help but I'm going to be working on Tom's other ongoing project with the Iowa class and its work towards Featured Topic. That reminds me that I need to e-mail him. -MBK004 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll help out some, but I only know that basics about the trip. :) — Ed   17  ( Talk /  Contribs )  16:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

North Sea
Hi, I'm GA-reviewing North Sea, which makes it seem that nothing of military / strategic importance happened there between 1815 and 1904, nor during WW II. Was it really so quiet? Either way, can you point me towards relevant WP:RS? Many thanks, --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the second world war was more e-boats and individual submarine attacks, not a pitched battle like Jutland. I suspect the equivalent was true for the late 19th century: port blockades and small skirmishes rather than pitched battles.  Although just because there wasn't a big battle doesn't mean the North Sea wasn't strategically important - each side of whatever conflict would be desparately trying to maintain their trade/supply routes and harass those of their opponents  Viv Hamilton (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment backlog
There's a backlog of nearly a hundred articles at Category:Unassessed military history articles, a great many of them within the scope of this task force. If you have a little free time, could help out please? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All gone now, thanks to those who helped out. All of the battleship articles that were in there really just need larger leads and they would be excellent articles. Woody (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a tag for that you might want to consider adding to those: intro-tooshort -MBK004 18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quite averse to tagging and running, much prefer to just write them myself, but I am a bit busy at the moment! I will see what I can do. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed moves of some Russian and Soviet submarine articles
In response to a discussion at WikiProject Ships, I have made a proposal to move several Russian and Soviet submarine articles to match the naming style outlined at WP:NC-SHIPS. Details may be found here. All comments are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to this proposal, there has been an alternative renaming proposal advanced. Both proposals would benefit from more opinions from all interested editors. The original proposal and the suggested alternative are both found here — Bellhalla (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting comment on Cerberus class battleship
Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force, I am asking for views regarding the name and content of the following articles: Cerberus class battleship, HMVS Cerberus, HMS Magdala (1870), and HMS Abyssinia (1870), as well as the template Cerberus class battleship

Based on various Australian naval history texts, I have found nothing that connects HMVS Cerberus and the concept of battleships beyond the fact that the ship's armoured hull, gun turrets, and superstructure were advances in naval architecture that were then utilised in the proto-battleships and battleships of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. However, I admit out front that I have not looked deeply into content on Magdala or Abyssinia, as I have little to no access to British or Indian naval histories, and what I have found on either side of the argument is limited to websites of dubious reliability. Based on this, I believe that naming the ships as "Battleships" is a gross exaggeration of their capabilities, design, and role, and am seeking to rename the main article to Cerberus class monitor and edit the articles appropriately.

If anyone has any observations or comments, please raise them here or at the Australian task force link above. -- saberwyn 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Operation Silent Sentry" redux
Hello everyone! USS Nevada (BB-36) will be featured on the main page on December 7th. I'd like to ask for help from our members to ensure that it stays vandalism-free throughout all of the time it is up - including when it is 3am in the U.S. ;) Thanks for any help you can provide! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Liberty incident now open
The peer review for USS Liberty incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Classification of wartime losses
Could editors please contribe to a discussion about classification of losses for List of maritime disasters. I don't like the fact that ships such as HMS Bulwark (1899) and SS Mendi are classified under the heading of peacetime losses, but it needs other editors to contribute different viewpoints and create a consensus one way or another. The talk page item is here. Thanks Viv Hamilton (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

submarines General Sanjuro and General Mola
Archimede class submarine and Spanish submarine C-3 contradict each other, the first says that Archimede was renamed General Sanjuro and Torricelli was renamed General Mola, whilst the latter says that Archimede was renamed General Mola and Torricelli was renamed General Sanjuro. This contradiction requires attention. 76.66.195.190 (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

stubbing start class articles
An editor has been adding the uk-mil-submarine-stub template to start class articles. I presume we don't have some strange policy that says that start class articles should be treated as stubs? Does anyone have bot expertise to find and revert such additions, or do we have to search through manually to get them? Viv Hamilton (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like only 5 articles were changed according to the user contribs. I think "stub" is defined as an article with less than 500 words. --Brad (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised stub was defined by word-count. I thought it was defined by usefulness of content, as it is possible to have short articles.  In this case, the article itself has 443 words, excluding references and external and templates (dsiplayed words, not mark-up words).  On the other hand, the ship template infobox has 103 words - all of it useful facts that don't appear in the article text.  It also has a British A-class submarine template, 2 images, 7 references and 9 external links.  It is also structured with a lead paragraph and other headings.  It could probably pass a few B-class criteria, although the service hsitory seems to be missing, so it isn't B-class.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stub per the stub template guidelines is based solely on word count, whereas the project assessment ones go on usefulness and actual content. Theoretically you could have a 30kb page which could be assessed as a stub because of the content. So, actually, the user isn't doing anything that untoward. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ship Notability - new attempt at guidelines
Under WP:Ships there has been a discussion on notability of ships, but it had gone quiet, so I've attempted to turn it into some sort of guideline here. This is very much a first attempt so feel free to be bold in editting it. I've copied the existing discussion to the new talk page. I would ask that you leave the existing sections and add new sections to discuss the new suggested guidelines. If it looks like we can generate a consensus, I think it should be moved to the WP:Ships project space. On the other hand, it is also rather relevant to this task force, so I hope editors from here will join in. Viv Hamilton (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One suggestion: find or create a space for historically signifigant ships, that is to say ships that were made famous due to circumstances surrounding there time in action. For example, HMS Victory and USS Constitution claim to be the oldest warships commissioned, USS Missouri was the battleship whose decks witnessed the end of WWII, USS Vincense for shooting down an Iranian airliner, and so forth. Granted these are extreme examples, some may not even qualify, but I thought I would throw that out and see what you think. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Norfolk -> Norfolk, England & Norfolk (disambiguation) -> Norfolk
A requested move has popped up at WP:RM about moving Norfolk around. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Corvette
at Talk:Corvette, there is a discussion going on if the warship (Corvette (ship) or sports car Chevrolet Corvette is the primary meaning of Corvette. This is listed at WP:RM 76.66.198.171 (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ship box Name" style templates nominated for deletion
110 templates of the form "Ship box name" (e.g. Template:Ship box CCGS Labrador) have been nominated for deletion. The full list of templates nominated is:

All editors are welcome to comment at the templates' entry at Templates for Deletion — Bellhalla (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Shipevents" templates nominated for deletion
All of the templates of the form "Shipevents[decade]", ranging from to, have been nominated for deletion. All editors are invited to comment at the templates' entry at the templates for discussion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)